9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant - It is well settled law that there has to be some concrete evidence which would show clandestine manufacture of goods, as was reiterated by Tribunal, Delhi, in the case of C.C.E. S.T. -RAIPUR VERSUS P.D. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. [ 2015 (11) TMI 455 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] . The impugned order confirming the recovery has no legal basis to be sustained - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Misc.50186 of 2021 (SM) (on behalf of the appellant) With Excise Appeal No.53702 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO.51731/2021 - Dated:- 12-8-2021 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. Parul Sachdeva, Advocate for the appellant. Shri P. Juneja, Authorised Representative for the respondent. ORDER The appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d procured a total of 6936.105 MT and 25171.23 MT of unaccounted M.S. Ingots without accounting for the same in the statutory records. The documents revealed that M/s. PIL had made unaccounted production of 16315.11 MT of M.S. Ingots during 2011-2012 and they clandestinely removed finished goods. 3. As the name of this appellant also appeared in the seized records of PIL, as supplier of M.S. Ingots, TMT Bars, etc, resultantly, a show cause notice dated 25/26.08.2015 was served upon the appellant proposing recovery of central excise duty of ₹ 26,21,079/- with interest and a penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11 AC and further penalty on the Director, Shri Amarpreet Singh Chandok. The said proposal was initially dropped by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... naccounted raw materials (ingots) to M/s.PIL. The order under challenge has discussed the clear involvement of the appellant, facilitating the clandestine removal of the finished goods to M/s.PIL. There is no infirmity in the order under challenge. Same is, accordingly, prayed to be upheld. 6. After hearing the rival contentions, I hold as under:- Since the sole challenge to the order is its reliance upon third party evidence, it is necessary to check the evidentiary value of the third party evidence. The relevant case law (on similar facts) in the case of Bajrangbali Ingots Steel Pvt. Ltd. Suresh Agarwal Vs. CCE, Raipur in Appeal No.E/52062 52066/2018 heard on 16.11.2018 in which this Tribunal have held as follows:- 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2016 (340) ELT 249 (Tribunal-Delhi). Earlier also in the case of Continental Cement Company Vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.), Hon ble High Court of Allahabad has held:- 12. Further, unless there is clinching evidence of the nature of purchase of raw materials, use of electricity, sale of final products, clandestine removals, the mode and flow back of funds, demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. Clandestine removal is a serious charge against the manufacturer, which is required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. On careful examination, it is found that with regard to alleged removals, the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
